I imported all of our hardware assets, computers and other devices into PSA. I set the 'Name' field for computers to match the name in RMM.

When a ticket is created from a machine via RMM, a duplicate hardware asset is created with the same name.

In the attached you can see an example of this. The first item was created recently, automatically. The second item was created initially when I imported all assets.

Andrew,

I have seen this also. For some reason, the RMM wants to add the system into the PSA even though the "NAME" is the same.  I am not sure just what fields the RMM/PSA integration connects on.

I have also see it where I change the user/password the client connects to our RMM with and then it creates another entry in our PSA.

2 hours ago, Gary Haberl said:

I have also see it where I change the user/password the client connects to our RMM with and then it creates another entry in our PSA.

I have seen this too.

The new duplicate is always created in the default group, so I generally delete the old duplicate in the client group, then assign the new duplicate to the client group.

It is happening less now I make all staff log to the RMM with the administrator username, but it would be much much better to have an improved and/or easier to use security model!

Hi All,

Currently, we are creating the new hardware asset when the ticket is created from the monitored system. All these hardware assets are created by using unique identifiers for the system. Therefore if you create the entries before you have triggered the notification from the monitored system, then these systems will be registered twice. In order to avoid this, I would suggest you trigger the notification from the monitored system and then edit it, therefore you will avoid the duplicate entries for the same systems.

Hi Chris,

I have already imported many computers with numerous fields into PSA. If I do what you suggest, I could only do this after manually triggering a notification for all the computers, but not all of them are online at the same time. Then, I would have to manually update each and every field for all the computers. This would be incredibly tedious, it would take hours and hopefully no errors are made in the process. Any way this can be improved?

Hi Andrew,

We are working on it.